Article | Published:

Effect of deliberation on the public’s attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research

European Journal of Human Geneticsvolume 26pages176185 (2018) | Download Citation


In this study, we evaluate the effect of education and deliberation on the willingness of members of the public to donate tissue to biobank research and on their attitudes regarding various biobank consent policies. Participants were randomly assigned to a democratic deliberation (DD) group, an education group that received only written materials, and a control group. Participants completed a survey before the deliberation and two surveys post-deliberation: one on (or just after) the deliberation day, and one 4 weeks later. Subjects were asked to rate 5 biobank consent policies as acceptable (or not) and to identify the best and worst policies. Analyses compared acceptability of different policy options and changes in attitudes across the three groups. After deliberation, subjects in the DD group were less likely to find broad consent (defined here as consent for the use of donations in an unspecified range of future research studies, subject to content and process restrictions) and study-by-study consent acceptable. The DD group was also significantly less likely to endorse broad consent as the best policy (OR = 0.34), and more likely to prefer alternative consent options. These results raise ethical challenges to the current widespread reliance on broad consent in biobank research, but do not support study-by-study consent.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from $8.99

All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:34–42.

  2. 2.

    Attachment C - Recommendations for Broad Consent Guidance. Office for Human Research Protections, 2017. Available at

  3. 3.

    Mayo Clinic Biobank Consent Form. Mayo Clinic Biobank. Available at (accessed on 31 October 2017)

  4. 4.

    Consent Form: United Kingdom Biobank. United Kingdom Biobank. 2017.Available at (accessed on 31 October 2017)

  5. 5.

    BioVU Consent Form. Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 2017. Available at (accessed on 31 October 2017)

  6. 6.

    Van Assche K, Gutwirth S, Sterckx S. Protecting dignitary interests of biobank research participants: lessons from havasupai tribe v Arizona board of regents. Law, Innov Technol. 2013;5:54–84.

  7. 7.

    Tomlinson T, De Vries R, Ryan K, Kim HM, Lehpamer N, Kim SY. Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. JAMA. 2015;313:417–9.

  8. 8.

    De Vries RG, Tomlinson T, Kim HM, et al. The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2016;12:3.

  9. 9.

    De Vries RG, Tomlinson T, Kim HM, et al. Understanding the public’s reservations about broad consent and study-by-study consent for donations to a biobank: Results of a National Survey. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0159113.

  10. 10.

    De Vries R, Stanczyk A, Wall IF, Uhlmann R, Damschroder LJ, Kim SY. Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1896–903.

  11. 11.

    Kim SY, Kim HM, Knopman DS, De Vries R, Damschroder L, Appelbaum PS. Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research. Neurology. 2011;77:2097–104.

  12. 12.

    McWhirter RE, Critchley CR, Nicol D, et al. Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool. J Pers Med. 2014;4:459–74.

  13. 13.

    Rychetnik L, Carter SM, Abelson J, et al. Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:380–6.

  14. 14.

    Silva DS, Gibson JL, Robertson A, et al. Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public’s perspectives. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:241.

  15. 15.

    Thomas R, Glasziou P, Rychetnik L, Mackenzie G, Gardiner R, Doust J. Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men’s knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005691.

  16. 16.

    Gornick MC, Scherer AM, Sutton EJ, et al. Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward return of secondary results in genomic sequencing. J Genet Couns. 2016;26:122–32.

  17. 17.

    Dwyer-White M, Doshi A, Hill M, Pienta KJ. Centralized research recruitment-evolving a local clinical research recruitment web application to better meet user needs. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4:363–8.

  18. 18.

    OECD Guidelines on Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases (Section 4. 6). 2009. Available at

  19. 19.

    Strech D, Bein S, Brumhard M, et al. A template for broad consent in biobank research. Results and explanation of an evidence and consensus-based development process. Eur J Med Genet. 2016;59:295–309.

  20. 20.

    ISBER best practices for repositories: collection, storage, retrieval and distribution of biological materials for research (Section L2.200). 2012. Available at

  21. 21.

    Rubright JD, Cary MS, Karlawish JH, Kim SY. Measuring how people view biomedical research: Reliability and validity analysis of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6:63–8.

  22. 22.

    Kim SY, Wall IF, Stanczyk A, De Vries R. Assessing the public’s views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009;4:3–16.

  23. 23.

    Fisher LD, Dixon DO, Herson J, Frankowski RK, Hearron MS, Peace KE. Intention to Treat in Clinical Trials. Statistical issues in drug research and development. New York: M. Dekker; 1989:331–50.

  24. 24.

    Simon CM, L’Heureux J, Murray JC, et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet Med. 2011;13:821–31.

  25. 25.

    D’Abramo F, Schildmann J, Vollmann J. Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:60.

  26. 26.

    Garrison NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AH, et al. A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet Med. 2016;18:663–71.

  27. 27.

    Solomon S, Mongoven A. Extending the surrogacy analogy: applying the advance directive model to biobanks. Public Health Genom. 2015;18:1–10.

  28. 28.

    Mongoven AM, Solomon S. Biobanking: shifting the analogy from consent to surrogacy. Genet Med. 2012;14:183–8.

  29. 29.

    Grady C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:855–62.

  30. 30.

    Koenig BA. Have we asked too much of consent? Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44:33–4.

  31. 31.

    Cargill SS. Biobanking and the abandonment of informed consent: an ethical imperative. Public Health Ethics. 2016;9:255–63.

  32. 32.

    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and health care: ethical issues (Section 3. 12). 2015. Available at

  33. 33.

    WMA Declaration of Taipei On Ethical Considerations Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks (Principle 14). 2016. Available at

  34. 34.

    Chrysler D, McGee H, Bach J, Goldman E, Jacobson PD. The Michigan BioTrust for Health: using dried bloodspots for research to benefit the community while respecting the individual. J Law Med Ethics. 2011;39(Suppl 1):98–101.

  35. 35.

    Garrett SB, Dohan D, Koenig BA. Linking broad consent to biobank governance: support from a deliberative public engagement in California. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:56–7.

  36. 36.

    O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM, Edwards K, et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:367–74.

  37. 37.

    O’Doherty KC, Hawkins AK, Burgess MM. Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1604–11.

Download references


The work was supported by grant 1 R01 HG007172-01A1 from the National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Author information


  1. Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    • Tom Tomlinson
    •  & Linda Gordon
  2. Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    • Raymond G. De Vries
    • , Kerry A. Ryan
    •  & Chris D. Krenz
  3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    • H. Myra Kim
  4. Van Andel Research Institute, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

    • Scott Jewell
  5. Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    • Scott Y. H. Kim
  6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    • Scott Y. H. Kim


  1. Search for Tom Tomlinson in:

  2. Search for Raymond G. De Vries in:

  3. Search for H. Myra Kim in:

  4. Search for Linda Gordon in:

  5. Search for Kerry A. Ryan in:

  6. Search for Chris D. Krenz in:

  7. Search for Scott Jewell in:

  8. Search for Scott Y. H. Kim in:

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Tomlinson.

Electronic supplementary material

About this article

Publication history